Talk:Kerbel Formation

Proposed merge of Munising Group with Kerbel Formation

This article duplicates content found in another article. scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per previous dicussion at the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black River Formation @Paul H.:, @Choess:, @Jwtmsqeh: Can you please take a look at this and give your considered opinion if possible. scope_creep^Talk 14:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allan Nonymous: I thought I should include you as well. scope_creep^Talk 18:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might have want to have a look at Talk:Munising Group where there already is a discussion ongoing. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users from that discussion @Викидим, Klbrain, and Elriana:. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The support reasons for merging BRF to BRG does not apply here, different scenarios. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, we don't need mass stubs for these sorts of articles. User:Lavalizard101 I would strongly recommend you not WP:BLUDGEON these discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One comment at each discussion is not bludgeoning, after all each merge must be considered independently, neither is pointing to the discussion already underway at the merge destination. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that we do not need mass stubs for articles about stratigraphic units. However, the solution is not merging all of them. The solution is not submitting any stubs in the first place. It is not to submit an new entry to Wikipedia until a suitably informative and lengthy article is ready. Another solution is to work on the stubs that are already available instead of submiting new stubs. Personally, do not create stubs. I either submit new stratigraphic articles close to their final length or expand stubs section by section over a period of a few days to week. Paul H. (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. (1) For me at least, there is no doubt that practically every geological unit fits WP:GNG ("practically" as very few would fail WP:FRINGE), there are not too many of them (unlike, say, asteroids), and most of these articles can be made into a WP:GA (many solid sources exist). (2) That said, the practical considerations suggest that we should not encourage creation of stubs like this one - but this one dates to 2017 and I do not see many new ones created recently. Викидим (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading through one source (admittedly, MS thesis), I am no longer even sure that Kerbel Formation is considered to be a part of the Minusing group as a matter of stratigraphic consensus. Викидим (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Викидим has an excellent point. I am having great difficulty using GEOREF, Google Scholar, and so forth, finding even a single publication that mentions "Kerbel Formation" and "Minusing Group" together in it. All that I can I find after 2000, the Munising Group is shown in Indiana and Michigan as containing the Franconia Formation, Ironton Sandstone, Galesville Sandstone, and Davis Formation. Then in Ohio, none of these units are recognized and the Kerbel Formation is shown as being a solitary stratigraphic unit unassociated with any group. It is seemingly restricted to Ohio. The only association between the Munising Group and Kerbel Formation that I can find is:

"Kerbel Formation, Late Cambrian. Remarks: An Ohio unit, see Janssens (1973). It is equivalent in part to the Franconia Formation and Galesville Sandstone." (Catacosinos et al., 2001)

I can only conclude that they are unrelated stratigraphic units that are not mergeable. Some supporting references are:

Catacosinos, P. A.; Harrison, W. B., III; Reynolds, R. F.; Westjohn, D. B.; and. Wollensak, M. S. 2001. Stratigraphic Lexicon for Michigan. Geological Survey Division. Bulletin 8, Lansing, Michigan.

Droste, J.B. and Patton, J.B., 1985. Lithostratigraphy of the Sauk sequence in Indiana. Indiana Geological & Water Survey Occasional Paper no. 47 32 pp

R.T., Crangle, R.D., Jr., Trippi, M.H., Swezey, C.S., Lentz, E.E., Rowan, E.L., and Hope, R.S., 2009. Geologic cross section D–D’ through the Appalachian basin from the Findlay arch, Sandusky County, Ohio, to the Valley and Ridge province, Hardy County, West Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3067, 2 sheets, 52-p. pamphlet. Paul H. (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Kerbel Formation is a well-defined subdivision of the Munising Group that lacks the same set of boundaries as the it. There is more than enough published material to prepare an useful and informative article. Now that the article been created, emphasis should be fleshing out the article with information. Similarily, both the Galesville and Ironton sandstones should kept instead being merged as suggested elsewhere. Paul H. (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]